On 12/24/2013 5:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Quentin,
I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only
logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a
God.
And it is NOT "ill-defined" even though all of reality is not known. The definition
itself is tight, exact and meaningful.
I don't necessarily disagree. One could define reality by saying, "THIS!" accompanied by
a sufficiently sweeping gesture. But definition needs make definite distinctions. So are
dreams, numbers, mathematics, chairs, events, electrons all equally "real" in your
ontology? Are some more fundamental than others? How do deal with theories of Everettian
relative states vs randomness vs mulitiple universes?
One doesn't need to know everything about reality to define it meaningfully as
everything that exists.
No, but you need an operational criterion to decide whether a give thing exists, e.g. does
Sherlock Holmes exist? Is there a 1000 digit prime number in the decimal representation
of pi? Does it exist?
Brent
Thus defining God as Reality is well defined and meaningful. It's the only rational
choice IF you need a God.
Edgar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
